John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversations with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. [8012/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:2 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach when he expects to next meet the British Prime Minister to review progress in the Northern Ireland talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8146/98]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:55 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will meet the British Prime Minister in advance of the deadline for completion of the multi-party talks. [8035/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 55 together.
On Saturday morning last I had a telephone conversation with the British Prime Minister, Mr Blair. We agreed that we must continue to make every effort to ensure we achieve agreement by the 9 April deadline.
We discussed the murder by the INLA of former RUC officer Cyril Stewart on Friday last. This outrage underlines once again the urgent need to move forward in order to achieve agreement. Yet we must never lose sight of the terrible grief of the family of Mr. Stewart who, like many families, have suffered a cruel bereavement as a result of this savage attack which I again utterly condemn, as I did publicly yesterday.
The Prime Minister and I have agreed to keep in close contact. We will meet later this week. We both remain fully determined and focused on ensuring that the required progress will be made.
I believe I speak for the House in wishing the Taoiseach well in the work he has to do this week in conjunction with the British Prime Minister and with all the participants in the talks. He has the support of everybody in Ireland in his work in that regard. May I ask the Taoiseach, however, if he had any discussions with the talks participants in advance of the public floating by him of the concept of having a Border poll every five years? How does the Taoiseach see this proposal contributing to the necessary stability to ensure the North-South and internal arrangements work harmoniously in the initial difficult years?
I thank the Deputy for his remarks. The Border poll idea has been around in one form or another for many years and, as I said yesterday, people should not get hung up on this idea. I was questioned about it and it has been discussed in the talks. I see these proposals as something that could happen in time. There would be no point in having people vote if there was no likelihood of change. Certainly there would be no likelihood of having a poll until the system was bedded down and operational. It is not a matter of great contention between the parties. In a context where there were 25 or 26 items on the agenda in the past few days, it is not one that creates difficulty between the UUP and ourselves or any other party.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the probable reason it is not creating difficulty is it had not been publicly aired until he raised it yesterday? What was his purpose in going public yesterday on the idea of a five-yearly Border poll?
It has been under discussion for some time. The reason I went public on it yesterday was that I was asked a direct question by a member of a BBC crew who had obviously been placed there, because he asked me about a question that had been discussed at a meeting on Saturday.
I congratulate the Taoiseach on his handling of the negotiations to date. With Deputy Bruton and every other Member, I wish him well in the few days remaining for the successful conclusion of these negotiations.
In regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, I understand from press reports that it is not proposed to indicate what these changes will be until every other issue has been agreed specifically in relation to the North-South bodies. When does the Taoiseach expect to at least let the leaders of the parties of this House have sight of the proposal, because it is not appropriate that we should have to respond to press reports in relation to them, given that every party in this House will be expected to support the outcome of these negotiations? Will the Taoiseach agree also that one of the key requirements arising out of the negotiations will be an agreement which does not lock the traditions into their respective camps forever, in other words, that the agreement should enable people of different political persuasions and with different views on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland to interact and develop a new approach?
I am not suggesting there should never be a poll on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, but regular, frequent polls of this type would make people defend their constitutional position on Northern Ireland. It would undermine one of the basic things we are looking for — stability.
I thank the Deputy for his remarks. I will brief party leaders as soon as I believe we have a clear understanding. There are intensive bilateral meetings today and our negotiating team, led by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has already had a number of meetings. It met the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party as well as the smaller parties, some of which are seeking support for changes to strand one. They have not played a major part in the process to date and must not be excluded by the formulation of strand one. That is a major issue for the Labour Party, the Ulster Democratic Party, the Progressive Unionist Party and the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition. I hope to speak to Mr. John Hume, who is in London to meet the British Prime Minister, after Question Time. Senator Mitchell is seeking progress by Thursday so that we can move on, and it will be the weekend before we can see where the process is going.
We have moved a lot of issues forward. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and even matters that are fairly well resolved sit there until the final parts are agreed. Strand one is still a difficult area, though not necessarily from our point of view. The North-South dimension is difficult and the constitutional issues are still not resolved, though these have been teased out extensively and argued about at length. I will contact the party leaders as soon as I can.
The Unionists said the poll idea was a good way to proceed. That was when there was no principle of consent. It is argued that there should be a poll every so often. I agree it should not be too often and should not be at the start, otherwise it would take time for matters to settle. The notion of not having a poll creates difficulties for others, which must also be taken into account.
I join Deputies Bruton and De Rossa in wishing the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and others involved well in a difficult stage in a long process that has lasted through several administrations. The Taoiseach previously indicated the availability of necessarily confidential briefings for party leaders, which I welcome. Those will probably be at the end of this week or early next week. Without being unhelpful, there is a necessity for an early debate in the House before final decisions are taken. How does the Taoiseach intend the Dáil to debate this process? Concerns have been expressed, not just about Articles 2 and 3, but about the composition of North-South bodies and the implications for the accountability of the Department of Finance, etc. Those issues have been spoken about on the margin but not in this House by people who will have to exercise that responsibility in due course. While I wish the Taoiseach and his colleagues success in reaching an agreement, will he indicate how he envisages all elected Members — not just the leaders of the main parties — being involved in a dialogue? Such participation is essential if we are to get a satisfactory outcome.
It is certainly desirable that we should discuss the agreement in the House at an early date, but I have no set plan for that yet. At this stage I am concentrating on reaching agreement, but I have no difficulty with holding a debate here on it. In due course, a referendum Bill will come before the House, but I assume Deputy Quinn wants a debate earlier than that.
Yes.
I am sure that can be arranged. If there is an agreement, parties will want to consult at all levels, but the agreement will have to be completed before holding such discussions. We will have a debate in the House as soon as possible after an agreement is reached.
On behalf of the Green Party, I also wish the Taoiseach well in the efforts to reach agreement. As the original question refers to his recent telephone conversations with the British Prime Minister, is the Taoiseach determined to dispel the growing perception that the process is becoming more bilateral and intergovernmental and losing its multilateral and community dimension? Will he outline what measures are proposed to dispel that unhealthy, and perhaps even inaccurate, perception? Will he do everything possible to ensure a Nationalist or Unionist majority rule modus operandi is not enshrined in a solution and that there is room to focus on more consensual decision-making? I would appreciate being part of the briefing suggested by the Taoiseach for other party leaders.
It is important to understand that the major session of full plenary talks is almost exhausted. I believe all parties agree we must move into smaller groups to reach agreement. Members have called for such a move for many months. However, plenary sessions were held last week. The level of rancour at full plenary sessions is extraordinary. Progress can be made at bilateral or trilateral talks and I believe that is what the parties want. This is not a move from full plenary sessions. We will hold full plenary sessions when they are necessary. The parties have examined their position papers and know the areas of compromise or disagreement. It is necessary, therefore, to work in small groups. For almost two years Senator Mitchell allowed the big round table process to develop to extraordinary lengths because he felt that was the best way to proceed at that stage and he was proved right. However, he now holds the view that the groups should be narrowed down.
We will try to ensure that nobody has the authoritative role of domination in any agreement reached and that it is based on consensus and as much partnership as possible. Many of the issues in strand one which have taken up a great deal of time and are still unresolved relate to how the majority voting position holds. Clear ground rules to deal with that can be built in if everyone agrees to them and I believe there will be such rules. None of the party leaders, their delegations or advisers, all of whom I have met over the past number of weeks, has suggested anything to me other than that they want an assembly under strand one which will work and which will not be dominated by a bloc of Unionist votes or frustrated by any other combination of votes.
I am confident the leaders' intent is for a workable assembly. If strand two works, that is the North-South dimension, not only should there be implementation bodies but elected politicians should also be involved in the process, and the same applies to the east-west dimension. I stated this yesterday at the meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body and in this House on previous occasions. These are mechanisms which will ensure everyone's voice is heard. If this did not happen, the agreement would not be worth anything because people would feel isolated and alienated.
I wish the Taoiseach the best of luck for the next ten days or so and he knows no one is more sincere in that wish than I. The word "historic" has been bandied about much, but I believe the decision to be taken in the next ten days or so will be historic no matter how it works, and I am still optimistic about the outcome.
Is the Taoiseach aware that one of the purposes of the 1973 Northern Ireland Constitution Act, in which the Border poll was introduced, was to take the constitutional issue out of Northern politics, to the extent that was possible, to enable the powersharing executive to get on with its day to day work and the basic job of reconciling the two sections of the community in Northern Ireland without the constitutional issue being constantly present?
What I call the "rabbit" theory in Northern Ireland politics, that there will be a solution because one side will eventually outbreed the other, is an extremely dangerous concept. A greater recipe for instability and continuing trouble could not be imagined. I know it is not part of the Taoiseach's thinking but will he assure the House that no one need have fears about it and that it is not part of his mindset? Some people already think in those terms.
I have heard about that. We must try to achieve an agreement by which people feel happy with themselves. They will not feel completely happy as they will object to certain parts of the agreement owing to the fact that they must compromise. However, it must be an agreement which they can sell to their supporters and which can then be put into operation. I am glad that in the past few weeks, especially last week, the talks have focused on the fact that we seek workable bodies and structures which can operate and function in Northern Ireland.
As Deputy Currie has heard me say before in this House and in conferences and seminars we have attended, it never ceases to amaze me and I have not yet worked out why so many politicians have an absolute fear about working in a political assembly to try to best handle their affairs. Although we do not have an input into strand one, I believe Northern Ireland politicians should take the opposite view to the one they hold about such an assembly because these are matters concerning their constituents and people. Were that to happen, they would not always be focusing on long-term strategies. It is very difficult for any of us to influence what happens in the long-term. Most elected representatives can have a shot at trying to influence what happens in the shortterm and the parties should think about that, but it appears many of them do not hold that view. I hope in the final settlement that we will perhaps have a structure by which they can deal with short-term issues.
Will the Taoiseach agree that any measures which may be agreed which tend to institutionalise sectarianism, rather than address its causes, would have serious consequences for the future of the people in Northern Ireland? Will the Taoiseach agree that representation in the Dáil or Seanad for one section of the community only from Northern Ireland — as mooted in a newspaper today — would be counterproductive, divisive and sectarian? Will the Taoiseach report on his recent meeting with the Women's Coalition? Will he agree that its proposal of a civic forum, parallel to the political forum, which would be a venue for ordinary people, cross-community organisations and representatives from the suffering communities to come together to trash out their common problems and try to agree solutions would be more constructive than any formal institutionalisation of the divisions that have to be overcome?
The first concept of representation, if proposed, would not have been exclusive. If the idea was followed through, it would be open to everybody but it was only a proposal. The second concept concerns the civic forum of which we have been supportive on the basis that it was not a second parliamentary tier but a genuine forum. Efforts are being made to convince the other parties of that proposal but we have been supportive of the Women's Coalition proposal on the civic forum.
I wish to return to the issue of the poll in relation to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. From the point of view of the way in which an agreement will work in the long run, it is important that people are enabled to be cross-communal in their politics. In addressing the issue of a poll — I welcome the fact that he has said this should not happen often — will the Taoiseach agree that the idea of demographics being a trigger for holding a poll would be obnoxious? This is a nice word for a sectarian head count. The idea that if a child is baptised a Catholic or a Protestant it defines their politics for the rest of their lives is a nonsense. We should seek to end that kind of nonsense. It is contrary to the whole idea of Wolfe Tone republicanism, unlike the style of sectarian republicanism portrayed in various parts of society, North and South.
It was never put in that form. As I said previously, the idea of sectarianism of that degree would be absurd. The concept merely comes from the fact that there may be a need for a mechanism in due course to test the state of opinion on constitutional issues. That is where it comes from, not from demographics.
On the question of a poll do I take it that the people of this State will be enabled to say yes or no to such a proposal as well?
There is no agreement on that issue. People have argued that the logic is that if the two parts of the island vote on the first day, the two parts of the island should vote on the second day.
Will the Taoiseach return to a question put to him earlier which he did not answer? Can he confirm that a proposal to give one section of the community in Northern Ireland seats in an all-Ireland body is not on the agenda in the talks? I read in the newspapers this morning that there would be special seats in the Seanad for Northern Nationalists. Does the Taoiseach agree this is a sectarian concept? We are concerned with all the people in Northern Ireland and on this island, whether they are Nationalists or Unionists. Any proposal which singles out one section in this way would run contrary to the concept of a non-sectarian approach.
The proposal, and that is all it was, was that people from Northern Ireland would have representation. It did not refer to any particular grouping.
There is nothing wrong with that.
No. It was only a proposal.